It was asked to me in what direction is the italian public opinion leaning.
Perugia is a small town, with teeny tiny streets.
I can hardly imagine a large portion of the italian population fitting in there.
Did they travel by train, by bus, to be there just in case the appeal would overturn the sentence?
It must have been an organizational nightmare.
Did anyone statistically study the crowd to check if it was representative of the italian population?
Maybe people from the UK were there, in the demonstrations that were reported to you?
-- But they won't extradite, you sure have that part right.
Why would italian judges convict without solide evidence, and against science?
Last edited by loulou; 02-04-2014 at 10:44 PM.
Vagabond should tell him, or alert the School their people need further preparation. - End of story, like he/she kindly posted, because that helps the discussion.
Link to interview.
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, March 27 2013, interview by Alessandra Farkas
"All the lawyers and the judges I know have a very different opinion on this case, than the opinion of the average american, who only sees Amanda's pretty face and believes the superficial and biased US tv pieces on the matter".
Why are you so convinced Amanda is guilty?
"I am convinced because I carefully examined the whole case. Circustantial evidences are enough to prove she's guilty and I believe the Italian Supreme Court did a an amazing job. The only issues of the first trial were the investigators' sloppyness and the state attorney's revengefulness".
The US justice system would have convicted Amanda?
"There's proof beyond any reasonable doubt which comes from her initial false confession, where she tried to implicate an innocent man. All the other proves have to be seen through the lense of that lie".
Media wrote that the double jeopardy law prevents from getting a defendant on trial for the same crime twice.
"That's not the case: Amanda was found not guilty at the end of her appeal, not at the end of her first trial. There's however another law, that prevents convicted people from making money out of their crimes, and states that any earnings should go the the family of the victim of the crime. The Kerchers will sue to get the millions Amanda is about to make".
Last edited by loulou; 02-04-2014 at 10:53 PM.
I am to saying that I feel that Knox and Sollecito should be convicted. I am simply stating law.
Not to mention, Allan Dersowitz is a publicity hound and a douchebag. If you want to find a credible source to support your POV, he ain't it.
Actual bumper sticker series: Jesus is my co-pilot. Satan is my financial advisor. Budha is my therapist. L. Ron Hubbard owes me $50.
I have a couple of thoughts.
Regarding Knox accusing the wrong man, I seem to recall somewhere that while the police didn't know about Guede, they had found a hair that they realized came from someone of African descent at the crime scene. Is that something that Knox was told during interrogation? If so, it might explain why she implicated Patrick Lumumba. She knew the killer was African. As I also understand it, the police found a text from Knox to Lumumba where she said "See you later" in response to his telling her she didn't need to come to work and they interpreted it as meaning she intended to meet up with him that night. If she was confronted by the police during her interrogation with the fact that Meredith was killed by an African and the police pointed to evidence linking to Lumumba, it would help explain why she accused the wrong man.
The second thing has to do with the new motive. Guede was convicted on the theory that Meredith was killed during a sex game gone wrong while she was being held down by Knox and Sollecito. Now, the prosecutor has convicted Knox and Sollecito using a completely different scenario -- a fight over cleanliness. So which is it? It seems fundamentally wrong to me to allow a prosecutor to pursue inconsistent theories against different defendants, because both theories cannot be true. The prosecutor should have some duty to the public to seek the truth; his responsibilities should go beyond just getting a conviction by whatever means is possible.
The question of extradition will be interesting, if it comes to that. I've heard some speculate Italy may not want to drag this out anymore and just won't bother with a request, perhaps cutting some kind of deal. If they do, I tend to agree the US would cooperate unless Knox's defense team could build some rock solid case about this violating her constitutional rights. They could point out that at her acquittal, she wasn't just found not guilty for lack of evidence, but actually found innocent for not having done the crime. Then there are some other aspects of the decision to overturn the acquittal they might be able to bring up, such as the fact that on several points it was based on the reasoning of the acquittal not being in line with evidence accepted at the trial of Rudy Guede - a trial at which Knox and Sollecito had no representation, and at which the defense had a vested interest in forwarding the theory of multiple attackers. Guede got his sentence reduced almost in half for implicating Knox and Sollecito - and that has a lot to do with why the case went to trial again after the acquittal.
ETA: An interesting discussion on the 14 points the Supreme Court made in the ruling to overturn the acquittal, as I believe loulou was looking for. Some interesting stuff in the comment section too.
Last edited by zippy; 02-07-2014 at 12:56 AM.
This thread prompted me to buy her book in audio format, and read by Amanda. Anyone else read it?
First off, let me say that I don't think the Italians had evidence enough to put her at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime, let alone to convict her.
Having said that....she is one weird duck! I wonder if she sits somewhere on the high functioning end of the Autism spectrum.
DH - and that's just my opinion
I can't help but find her boyfriend's comments interesting. He mentioned how aggravated she was when she came back from the house and said it looked like someone broke in and there was blood in the bathroom. Then he said she seemed to be gone a long time for someone who just went to take a shower.
I have been adamant about her innocence and I still am but this is interesting coming from him. I have a feeling he is just trying to distance himself from her and I can't blame him. It may be his only shot of not going to prison. He can throw her under the bus and know it won't matter for her, she will hardly stand a chance of being extradited.
"Michelle would never be caught with sausage grease staining her Vera Wang." - rfisher
She has avoided some of the things in her book that had later been presented against her and I am yet to read Solleccito's book in Italian.
The other day I was talking to 5 of students from my University who spent a semester or more in Perugia and asked them about the students life. 4 of them were there for Erasmus, while one came back with a degree, but all 5 of them say the same thing about pot being easily available and is used with ease, casually and often by locals (i think they meant local students at Perugia Unviersity) and foreign exchange students. So it is interesting how the prosecutor in the original trial and the press painted the American student as a druggie...
As of March 2013 - no longer scared of TAHbKA or Andrey aka Pushkin
^^ I think hearing Amanda's voice added a whole dimension to the information.
DH - and that's just my opinion